Ex Parte Nurmi

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 29, 2016

12827558 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 29, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/827,558 06/30/2010
11764 7590
Ditthavong & Steiner, P,C,
44 Canal Center Plaza
Suite 322
Alexandria, VA 22314
05/03/2016
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Mikko Antero Nurmi
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www .uspto.gov
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
P4274USOO 5295
EXAMINER
SUN, LIP
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2143
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/03/2016 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address( es):
docket@dcpatent.com
Nokia.IPR@nokia.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MIKKO ANTERO NURMI
Appeal2014-009057
Application 12/827,558
Technology Center 2100
Before THU A. DANG, NATHAN A. ENGELS, and
STACY B. MARGOLIES, Administrative Patent Judges.
DANG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We affirm.
A. INVENTION
According to Appellant, the invention relates to "determining user
location and presenting user information on one or more displays based on
the determined user location" (Spec. i-f 2).
Appeal2014-009057
Application 12/827,558
B. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Claim 1 is exemplary:
1. A method comprising:
determining, by one or more processors, respective locations of a
plurality of users; and
causing, at least in part, presentation of respective user information at
a plurality of respective positions on at least one display based, at least in
part, on the respective locations of the plurality of users such that each
respective position is substantially across from a corresponding respective
location.
C. REJECTION
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Togawa
Zalewski
US 2009/0037023 Al
US 2008/0261693 Al
Feb. 5,2009
Oct. 23, 2008
Claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over the teachings of Togawa and Zalewski.
II. ISSUE
The principal issue before us is whether the Examiner erred in finding
that the combination of Togawa and Zalewski teaches or would have
suggested "causing ... presentation of respective user information at a
plurality of respective positions ... based, at least in part, on the respective
locations of the plurality of users such that each respective position is
substantially across from a corresponding respective location" (claim 1 ).
2
Appeal2014-009057
Application 12/827,558
Ill. FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of
the evidence.
Zalewski
Zalewski discloses establishing communication between a computer
device and a controller to be held by a user (i-f 12), wherein a graphical user
interface is displayed on a display and image data is captured from a capture
area located in front of the display where a user interfacing with the
computing system is expected to reside (i-f 42). Figure 2A is reproduced
below:
·~!
.... i{:~
1/'', . ~c,,~
er:~
--~~------- --~ -
i,
\, ' ;, . ~ t' _;ii ~ ... ;;.:.- ~"i.... .. ~
~ t \ )._~·;~·/-7 --....._ \..~-. i
\ \f .! \ p~~YER C.---.... _ .... ( . -(:(/.. - l
"\ \., ·' \~> ~'.,~'iE,t< A \ \.,\ I
\ f ~J, !/ ~!4b
Z-Ul:I~-=~.~.&·Jt~::c. : ,.._'>:'\ t i
t ·i; { l
' )l ·1 ' v ~~:J ~
l
I
'·, '--., • I
.... , .... ..,_ l ~
-~ ... ----------------!--~---'--~
F\G.2A
Figure 2A discloses that the image capture device obtains the x and y
coordinates of controllers C 1, C2 and C4, C5 held in the hands of players A
and C, respectively, and the computing system uses the obtained coordinates
3
Appeal2014-009057
Application 12/827,558
and distances to produce representations of the players in the screen, avatars
112a and 112b respectively (i-f 55).
IV. ANALYSIS
Appellant contends "Zalewski does not disclose that each alleged
respective position is substantially across from a corresponding alleged
respective location" (App. Br. 6). In particular, Appellant contends "there is
no disclosure that would teach or suggest that, for example, the avatars 112a
and 112b illustrated in FIG. 2A would change sides of the display 104 if the
players would also change the sides of the display" (App. Br. 6-7).
Although Appellant concedes "the avatars 112a and 112b may simply be
positioned with respect to player A and player C as a function of the
distances between controllers," Appellant contends "there is no disclosure to
support that avatar 112a is always across from Player A" (App. Br. 7).
We have considered all of Appellant's arguments and evidence
presented. However, we disagree with Appellant's contentions regarding the
Examiner's rejections of the claims. We agree with the Examiner's findings,
and find no error with the Examiner's conclusion that the claims would have
been obvious over the combined teachings.
As an initial matter of claim interpretation, we give the claims their
broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification. See
In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997). While we interpret
claims broadly but reasonably in light of the specification, we nonetheless
must not import limitations from the specification into the claims. See
Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en bane).
Although Appellant contends "there is no disclosure [in Zalewski]
that would teach or suggest that, for example, the avatars 112a and 112b
4
Appeal2014-009057
Application 12/827,558
illustrated in FIG. 2A would change sides of the display 104 if the players
would also change the sides of the display" and that "there is no disclosure
to support that avatar 112a is always across from Player A" (App. Br. 6-7,
emphasis added), such contentions are not commensurate in scope with the
recited language of independent claims 1, 9, and 1 7. That is, claims, 1, 9,
and 17 do not require any "change" of sides by the avatars or the players,
such that the avatars would be "always" across the players (id.). As the
Examiner points out, "[ n Jo where in Claims 1, 9 and 17 [is there a recitation
of] any feature regarding user/players changing sides" (Ans. 15). Instead,
claim 1 (and similar claims 9 and 17) merely recites that the "presentation"
of user information at a plurality of respective positions is based on the
locations of the plurality of users "such that" each respective position is
"substantially across" from the corresponding location (claim 1 ).
As the Examiner interprets, in Zalewski, an "[a]vatar is a
representation of the player, which can be considered as a type of user
information" (Ans. 5). The Examiner finds, and we agree, in Zalewski, "as
two players are holding the controllers, location information of the players is
detected and then used to present two avatars on the screen" (Ans. 5; FF).
We agree with the Examiner's finding that Zalewski discloses "avatar 112a
for player A is displayed substantially across from player A, and avatar 112b
for player C is displayed substantially across from player C" (Ans. 15; FF).
Although Appellant contends "the avatars 112a and 112b may simply
be positioned with respect to player A and player Casa function of the
distances between controllers" (App. Br. 7), claims 1, 9, and 17 do not
preclude positioning the avatars as a function of the positions of the
controllers held in the players' hands. We find no error in the Examiner's
5
Appeal2014-009057
Application 12/827,558
reliance on Zalewski' s representations of the players (avatars) on the screen
produced from image data captured from a capture area where a user is
expected to reside by obtaining the locations of the controllers held in the
hands of players thereat (FF) for disclosing and suggesting the presentation
of user information "based ... on the respective locations" of the users.
Accordingly, we find no error with the Examiner's reliance on
Zalewski for disclosing and suggesting "causing ... presentation of
respective user information at a plurality of respective positions ... based, at
least in part, on the respective locations of the plurality of users such that
each respective position is substantially across from a corresponding
respective location," as recited in claim 1 (and similarly recited in claims 9
and 17).
Furthermore, the test for obviousness is what the combined teachings
would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Merck &
Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The Supreme Court has
determined that the conclusion of obviousness can be based on the
interrelated teachings of multiple patents, the effects of demands known to
the design community or present in the marketplace, and the background
knowledge possessed by a person having ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int 'l
Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007).
Even assuming arguendo that Zalewski' s presentation of user
information (avatars) is merely based on the locations of the controllers and
is not based on the location of the users, Appellant has provided no evidence
that presenting user information based on the location of the users instead of
or in addition to the location of the controllers in the users' hands was
"uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art."
6
Appeal2014-009057
Application 12/827,558
Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir.
2007). Nor have Appellant presented evidence that such an incorporation of
a teaching in the same field of endeavor would have yielded unexpected
results.
Rather, we find presenting user information based on the location of
the users instead of or in addition to the location of the controllers in the
users' hands, to an ordinarily skilled artisan, is simply a
combination/modification of familiar prior art practices or acts (as taught or
suggested by the cited combination of references) that would have realized a
predictable result. The skilled artisan is "a person of ordinary creativity, not
an automaton." KSR, 550 U.S. at 420-21.
Based on this record, we find no error in the Examiner's rejection of
independent claims 1, 9, and 17, and claims 2-8, 10-16, and 18-20
depending therefrom and falling therewith (App. Br. 7), over Togawa and
Zalewski.
With respect to dependent claims 3, 11, and 18, Appellant also
contends that "Togawa does not concern verifying a user but, instead,
merely concerns tracking a user" (App. Br. 8). However, we agree with the
Examiner's finding that in Togawa, "the user position acquisition section 52
... may execute detection of the user using the image taken by camera every
predetermined time and ... use the image to determine/verify if there is a
difference between the detected direction of the user and the previously-
acquired positon" (Ans. 7). We agree with the Examiner that the term
"verify" is "broad" (Ans. 16), and thus find no error with the Examiner's
reliance on Togawa for disclosing and suggesting the contested "verifying"
step (Ans. 16-17).
7
Appeal2014-009057
Application 12/827,558
V. CONCLUSION AND DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
8